Speaking generally, casino requires KYC prior to investigation and informing the user about their findings, I believe, is to get the user to perform KYC and obtained their data to prevent future abuse in case the user was found to be in violation and got their account blocked. Understandably, no user will want to perform KYC if the casino said, "we detect you of multi-acc, can you please perform KYC so we can get your data?" [This paragraph is more intended for readers of this thread in general as I believe you should be quite familiar with this].

Nonetheless, I have to agree that their request to OP is a bit excessive. OP already performed KYC level 1 and 2, which should be enough to prove his identity and help casino flag the user if they abuse the ToS, I don't see the necessity of level 3 and 4 KYC if it's simply to investigate a bet.

Addressing your question why Stake only mention about the KYC on AG and not the suspicious bet, I think that's going back to their SOP, that the KYC should be done first [disregarding how intrusive and unnecessary the level 3 and 4 KYC for now], and only after it's done, Stake will inform the findings and let AG do their investigation. Much like what I wrote on the other thread, a very similar one where KYC being dragged for so long, this is sadly just a beginning of a very long phase, because only after the OP finished their KYC, the real investigation began.

---

I believe someone with an once of a brain will be able to understand that when I said "working for the forum", I am not talking about being staff or anything, but rather in sense of helping the users of the forum. Users. This means both the gamblers and the casino. Certainly you understand that a casino and their representative counted as a user of the forum too, and thus, both parties reserve an equal treatment? If they're being the wrong one here, then they're wrong, if they scam their user, they will probably be tagged, but if they're the victim of a gambler who try to extort them, don't they reserve the right to be treated as a victim and the bad actors who try to scam them being exposed

As for jumping on every post and defend the casino, I believe my previous post, the one that you quoted, explains my position during each cases. Unless you jumped from reading that post straight to write something? I can understand that it's quite a long text, some will find it difficult to follow, let alone digest them. It's ok, I understand.

For bitcointalk have nothing to do with casinos, I believe there were a discussion and thread about this, about how they co-exist and depending on each other, I'm too lazy to dig it out though. But please amuse us, how do you think bitcointalk has nothing to do with casinos, while they actually have a board about gambling, that facilitates announcement and communication for casinos?

Maaaan.


Here is a fact: you accuse someone of siding with casino, that 99% post of that user is defending almost every casino, that he is partial and biased. One can even dare to say you make a defamatory statement regarding that person. And when he stepped up and explained things, with supporting evidence that what you say and believe is wrong, your response is what we can summarize as, "yeah, I don't care, I don't even bother reading it, it's such a waste of my time".

Based on that reaction, I think it's safe to assume either of the two possible situation: one, you actually read them, realized that you made a mistake and wrongy lashed out at someone else [again], but too proud and too little of a man to admit that he made a mistake [it's ok, you know? Misunderstanding happens, we understand that] so you pretended that you didn't read them. Or two, you did not read them. Which... somehow actually more awful. You accuse someone, a serious allegation, if I may add my personal opinion, that someone then tried to explain the situation according to their side and tried to defend themselves, and you don't bother to listen [or... read]. Inferred from this, is it safe to assume that it's your trait and it'll basically be your reaction to the ruling made by AG and/or Stake themselves? "Yeah, I don't care. I'll let someone who has more time than me to read your explanation, I am not reading that explanation of what actually happened. I know what happens. I believe in what I know."

Hmm?

---

AHOYBRAUSE, I think I need a little help to understand the context here. And as you've been here for a while too, and quite familiar with that latest news of Porter...

So far, the narrative is: OP is KYC verified level 2, made bets and withdrawals and other activities normally, and at one point got his account frozen and asked to perform further KYC [level 3 and 4], and got stuck on that process ever since, and is in the middle of sorting this thing out with AG.

Can you tell me where does exactly the information about the problematic bets was the one related to Jontay Porter? Do I miss something? I didn't see it being mentioned anywhere on AG, nor by Stake's representative. I can't find any decision or ruling regarding it, yet OP sounds so sure about it. Is there something --that I missed-- that helps OP sure and zeroing in into those bets amongst every other possible bets he had?

I mean, OP himself stated that he just follow trends. Logically, at least if it was me, I'll still be clueless of which bets is the root of my situation, unless I've suspected it from the beginning that it'll be a problem. But, given I am just following trends, I should have no way to suspect anything, as I am basically following and placing my money on what other people picks instead of specifically follows one instruction.